Disputatio Vicipaediae:De recensendo

Categoriae?? Robin Patterson 03:26 iun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is it ok with everyone to move this page to "Auxilium paginarum rite edendarum" as per discussion on the Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova#Auxilium pro editione, etc.. ?--Rafaelgarcia 01:18, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

What about Auxilium paginarum recte recensendarum, instead?--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:33, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

It seems everyone is OK with this? --Rafaelgarcia 03:42, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this edendarum... It reminds me of eating... Scribo, or recenseo I think to be better verbs. And is rite really the most colloquial way of saying this? Non recte?--Ioshus ^(disp) 03:45, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

According to Whitaker's words: publish; disclose translates to

edo, edare, edidi, editus V (1st) TRANS [XXXAO]

So that the appropriate word is edandarum (of editing) NOT edendarum(of eating)--Rafaelgarcia 04:07, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Who's that Whitaker? In any case, edare, edandarum etc do not exist. Ask your Latin professors if you don't believe me. The prefixed dare changed its conjugation from I to III. The ambiguity of edo 'I edit' and edo 'I eat' gets mostly resolved contextually, so it's at most a theoretical worry. If we are concerned with paginae rite edendae, it's somewhat bizarre to worry about whether we are going to ordain how our pages should be eaten in the proper way. And what's wrong with rite? In some religious contexts it means 'with proper ceremonies', but mostly it means 'duly, properly, rightly, in the ordinary manner'. But by all means, rite may be replaced by recte, if that sounds better. --Neander 05:43, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with rite is exactly what you said, it sounds a bit ceremonious... Recte accomplishes the same thing without the pomp.--Ioshus ^(disp) 05:50, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The Words program is here [Whittaker's Words], it includes neolatin and medieval vocabulary and I suspect edare is a medieval variant. --Rafaelgarcia 16:19, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

It's also at Words...--Ioshus ^(disp) 16:36, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Interesting debate, the need to distinguish edere from édere is precisely the reason why the best classical grammarians, whose tradition Quntilianus so gloriously preserved for us, recommend the use of the apex (cf. the article in the English Wikipedia, soon to be in this one as well) as necessary in some cases. Avitus 16:20, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I tried a few of the above ideas; each has its good and bad points. Since this is aimed at the beginning user I think we need to avoid difficult terms like edendarum and recensendarum and besides they don't mean anything very different than scribendarum. So in the end I edited the entry to be: Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum and Auxilium paginarum scribendarum. Have a look and please comment. Would it be OK to move the pages to these new names? --Rafaelgarcia 03:58, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I actually was thinking recensendarum, because the top of everyone's page says "recensere".--Ioshus ^(disp) 04:06, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point I hadn't considered. OK I changed it to Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum and Auxilium paginarum recensendarum. --Rafaelgarcia 04:21, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

But the article still has its old name! 'Auxilium pro editione' is not Latin, or to put it less emphatically, auxilium + pro is not attested in extant literature as far as I can see. Which is not surprising, because it follows the widespread trend at Vicipaedia to combine nouns with preposition + noun, something Latin usually avoids (litterae Darei - not: a Dareo, bellum Punicum - not: in Punicos, urbes ad mare sitae - not: ad mare; cf. Menge, Repetitorium der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik, part ii, p. 10-11). The suggestions made above would do much better.--Ceylon 22:07, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. Hope everyone likes the new title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:04, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise this came across a little arrogant; thanks for changing the title tho. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but I think that if we do create a Latin Wikipedia we should stick to the constructions native speakers used when it was still a living language rather than making up a Latin of our own (this doesn't apply to neologisms, which are obviously needed). Or have I got it all wrong? --Ceylon 00:00, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

No it sounds to me like you have it just right. Not all of us (including me) are up to the task of producing good latin consistently yet, but we are all improving with time. The goal, if I understand correctly, is that Caesar would be able to not totally freak out upon seeing our Vicipaedia. (Other than freaking out at the subject matter and some of the vocabulary, that is. :-)--Rafaelgarcia 00:30, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

At last the Anglicism "auxilium pro" has been eliminated! Adest dies laetitiae!!! --Neander 01:56, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

One of our problems is that we read one another's work a lot and we naturally pick up our Latin from one another. This is exactly how new variants of a language develop ... But, like the Carolingians and the Humanists, we don't want this to happen. We are trying to adopt and maintain a classical standard, plus modern vocabulary when needed (as Rafael just said; others, I think, agree). All help gratefully received. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, modern vocabulary is not needed: there's no reason bullets can't be sagittae and the House of Lords senatores, as Bradley's Arnold recommends (p. 302). How would you translate '(electric) battery'? In modern Samoan, that's a ma'a (quod in nostra lingua significat lapis). How will you know that a particular 'stone' isn't merely of the rocky kind? Context will tell you! Living Latin could similarly extend the meanings of its old words. For several important modern marvels, it already has the word machina, but Samoan doesn't have anything like that, and so it calls many devices lā'au (quod significat arbor): a radio is simply a 'tree,' or more precisely it can be a lā'au fa'alogologo (arbor auditioni, vel arbor ad auditionem, vel arbor audiens, revera arbor qua audimus), but any device that makes noise, like a radio and a tape recorder, can be a lā'au pese, a 'singing tree' (arbor cantans, vel arbor ad cantationem, etc.), a sewing-machine is a lā'au su'isu'i (arbor suens, etc.), a musical instrument is a lā'au o le fā'aili (arbor gregis), and a gun or a rifle can be a lā'au mālosi (arbor valens). An airplane is a navis quae volat (vel volans). An antiseptic is an aqua urens. A car or a truck is a [res] quae volvit. A photograph is an umbra, and so a camera is a res quae umbras capit ('shadow-catching thing'), cinematic film is umbra versata ('spun shadow, spinning shadow'), and to develop cinematic film is umbram versatam aquā arboris facere (Anglice, 'to make a spun shadow with tree-water'). A (medical) pill is a pomum ('tree-fruit'). A rubber band is a cutis porrigens (porrectioni, etc.). A salve or ointment is an aqua linens. A suitcase is just a corbis. To write is radere (Anglice, 'to scratch'), and so ink is aqua radens ('scratching-water'), a piece of writing is a res rasa ('a scratch'), and to print a book is rem rasam subigere ('to knead a scratch'). Naturally, since repronouncing foreign words for novel concepts is easy, Polynesian languages have borrowed many terms from other languages, mainly English nowadays—but thanks to missionaries, Samoan gained dozens of words from each of three ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. For example, its word for 'gold' is auro, and its word for 'linen' is lino, the sources of which everyone here will instantly know. ‘Urosa, its word for 'bear', and koluse, its word for 'cross', are phonetically more challenging. Our Greek friends shouldn't have much trouble recognizing the Samoan words for snow (kiona) and wolf (luko). But the point remains: 'snow' could well have become something like vai sinasina (Latine, aqua alba) or vai pefua (aqua pulverea), 'ice' something like vai malō (aqua dura), and 'wolf' something like maile fe'ai (canis ferox). IacobusAmor 13:24, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, but if you think 3 million species (Hendricus's estimate) can be named in Latin without extending the classical vocabulary, you're an optimist ... yes, I know, all Vicipaedians are optimists! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Technical terms of that sort are obvious exceptions. The old Romans borrowed words too of course—a slew of them from Greek, at several periods, and plenty from miscellaneous languages. IacobusAmor 14:37, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Auxilium pro editione Latiné et Latiné?

Quid interest inter Auxilium pro editione, quod Latiné scriptum est, et Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine), quod Latiné scriptum est? Avitus 16:20, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be general advice, not concerning Latin in particular. And, before you say it, yes! There is some unwanted overlap.

I think the first section (auxilium scribendi) applies to the Latin Vicipaedia in particular. I'm inclined to merge it into Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine). Does anyone disagree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I don't

understand the following line. Is it still valid, or does it relate to some older kind of wiki? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Si verbum cum ? vides, nexum nudum vides. Editio nova fieri potest. Exemplum: terra?

This is horribly outdated. In very old versions of the wiki software, links to non-existing pages were displayed in this way (now these links are shown in red). --UV 22:11, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

In the preferences, in the "Misc" tab, users can still choose the old link style for broken links. --UV 22:13, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that. But they aren't likely to make the choice unawares, so I guess this line can be removed from the page. I'll do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

understand the following line either:

*Vide Vici formae: non Vici : <nowiki></nowiki> Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Adiuvate me !

videte..vae..totas tabulas elementorum chemicorum pessime scripserunt (egomet censerem -5)! sed..sunt 115..et..nescio..singulas necesse est edere? (saltem) 115 editiones? :S quis potest mihi adiuvare eas edere? :P quis 30 edit.. et ego..50..et aliquis 30.. :P nescio.. hahae.

edo: iam vidi..et primi 30 articuli tantum eas habent..ignoscite :P

Hmmm, inspiciam.--Ioscius ^(disp) 18:35, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Link

I reinstated the redirect from Auxilium:Auxilium pro editione because it is now required by one of the links in the left-hand margin. Very likely there's a better way to solve this, but I don't know what it is! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it again, seems to have been a temporary issue. --UV 20:38, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Links to Wiki markup rules in other languages

Since the new banner is there, I made redirects from it to the German and English versions of these rules. This is OK for the moment, but it's not ideal, because cross-wiki redirects do not work with a single click. Therefore

1. we may want a version of the banner, specially for this page, that incorporates direct cross-wiki links, or
2. we may want to copy the German and English versions of the rules on to our own /de and /en pages, or
3. there may well be another, even better solution! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:47, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)